Proponents of the law, such as Alabama
governor Kay Ivey, claim that the motivation behind the law is to protect
life. As the governor said, “to the bill’s many supporters, this legislation
stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every
life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.” Some who
oppose the bill claim that it is not about protecting life but about
restricting women’s reproductive rights. While the philosophical problem of
other minds entails that I cannot know what another thinks and feels, it is
certainly sensible to look at the available evidence when determining motivations
and intentions.

In the case of the abortion law, the claim is that
Alabamians believe that every life is a precious and sacred gift from God. This
is certainly consistent with wanting to reduce the number of abortions. But do
Alabamian politicians and authorities hold to this view? A sensible test is to
see if they consistently apply this principle in their legislation and actions
throughout the state.

Coincidentally, as the governor of Alabama was
signing the law because of her deep belief that life is a precious, sacred gift
a story broke that Alabama’s
prison conditions are so awful as to be unconstitutional. If Alabamians
believe that every life is a precious, sacred gift then they would presumably
not permit the sacred lives in their prisons to endure such unconstitutional treatment.

An obvious objection is to argue that while all
lives are precious, sacred gifts, some lives are more precious and sacred than others.
While fetuses are innocent, prisoners have been found guilty of something and
hence deserve to be punished. As such, having horrible prisons is consistent
with the view that life is a precious, sacred gift.

This does, of course, have considerable appeal.
Even if life is precious, morality still permits people to be treated
differently based on their actions. As such, one can hold that life is
precious, but some life must be behind bars. However, there is still a problem.
If life is a precious, sacred gift, then even the worst people are still precious,
sacred gifts and thus deserve at least the basics of decent treatment. Moral
and legal limits of punishment are, of course, recognized by the constitution
and Alabama’s failure to act on this casts doubts on their devotion to the
professed principle that each life is a precious, sacred gift.

But one could still argue that criminals earn
their abuse by being bad and hence Alabama is acting consistently by having
terrible prisons and the strictest anti-abortion law at the same time. But if
Alabamans have this devotion to life, one would expect that it would manifest in
excellent maternal and infant health. To use an analogy, if your doctor said she
saw you as a precious, sacred gift and would do anything to protect life, you
would expect her to act on that. You would no doubt be shocked if she proved
negligent in her medical responsibilities and you ended up being needlessly
ill.

Given the professed view that Alabamans regard
life is a precious, sacred gift, one would be shocked to learn that Alabama is
terrible in terms of maternal and infant health. Alabama
is tied for 4th worst in the United States, with 7.4 deaths per
1,000 live births. While it might be argued that this is due to factors
beyond their control, there is a consistent correlation between strong
anti-abortion laws and poor maternal and infant health. While correlation is
not causation, the reason for this correlation is clear: the
state governments that enact the strictest anti-abortion laws also show, via
public policies, the least concern for maternal and infant health. This is
certainly inconsistent with the professed principle that life is a precious,
sacred gift. It is also inconsistent with the professed motivation for anti-abortion
laws: to protect the life of children. It is, however, consistent with the hypothesis
that this (and most) anti-abortion laws are motivated by misogynistic principles.
After all, if legislators pass anti-abortion laws because of hostility towards
women’s reproductive freedom and wellbeing, then one would also expect them to
neglect maternal and infant health in their other policies. On the face of it,
this is the better explanation.

It could be argued that Alabaman leaders do hold
to the life is a precious, sacred gift principle, they are just bad at
consistently applying it. So, it is applied to abortion but not to maternal and
infant health or to prisoners. Failing to apply one’s professed principles
consistently is, of course, a common human failing, and this could be used to
explain how anti-abortion leaders often tend to fail to apply their professed
pro-life principles to such things as infant and maternal health care. So, one
could argue that the Alabaman legislators have a good principle, but they do
not apply it consistently—despite their professed devotion to the principle and
the effort they put in applying it in the case of abortion.

As would be expected, my own view favors the
explanation that the Alabaman legislature and governor do not hold to their
professed principle. A better explanation is that their actual principle is one
that is hostile to women and perhaps to the less powerful in general—after all,
this is consistent with the state of Alabama prisons and the state of maternal
and infant health care. If they do hold to their professed principle, they are
incredibly inconsistent in its application—which is morally problematic as
well.

Like this:

Reader Interactions

Comments

Interesting point of view – arguing against abortion legislation by comparing it to the prison system. I don’t think you needed to go through all of that to get to your conclusion, which is consistent with all of your political opinions:

“A better explanation is that their actual principle is one that is hostile to women and perhaps to the less powerful in general” (I would point out that much of the discussion that surrounds restricting abortion rights is specifically targeted to supporting the rights of the less powerful, except that the less powerful in that case are the unborn.)

In other words, it all just comes down to hate. You could have just said this at the beginning and saved yourself a lot of time – maybe gone out for a run or something.

I think that you’re correct, though, that it’s a political move designed to move the conversation to the courts. I don’t think I’d go so far as to say that it’s a strategy based on confidence that the conservative-leaning SCOTUS will overturn Roe v Wade – rather, I’d say it’s an equal and opposite reaction to the proposed and enacted laws that allow for unrestricted abortion up to and beyond passage through the birth canal – which some define as true postpartum infanticide.

I would think that, as a philosopher, you would be a little more concerned with the larger issue here – leave the low-hanging fruit of the “moral inconsistencies” of politicians to the hacks while you consider the loftier subject of when life begins, and what is the obligation of the State, if any, to acknowledge and/or defend that life. If you want to just stand with your tribe and hurl accusations of hypocrisy and moral relativism at the other side, you’ll have plenty of targets – but you’ll get as much as you give and nothing will come of it except more hate.

In reading the text of Roe v Wade, it is apparent to me that that legislation did address this issue – seeking to find that point at which State has an obligation to protect the life of the unborn.

Roe v. Wade talks about “fetal viability”, or the ability for an infant to survive outside the womb. Back in 1973, this ability was understood to be at 28 weeks, but allowed that it might be as early as 24 weeks. Since then, however, there have been numerous cases of premature infants surviving after only 21 weeks. Further, at the time of Roe v. Wade, it was commonly accepted that a fetus did not have the ability to feel pain, but studies have disproven that misconception, showing that pain can be felt as early as 20 weeks or earlier.

Considering that Roe v Wade concerns itself with the obligation of the State to intervene to protect the rights of the unborn, and that these rights are considered specifically with regard to viability and the definition of human life, it is very appropriate that we enter into this discussion at this time.

And, despite your apparent hatred for White Republican Men and the ignorance of women’s reproductive systems on the part of some members of the Alabama legislature, they are at least entering this conversation, which is something maybe you ought to do as well. Broken down, here’s the argument:

Roe v Wade: A fetus is viable after 28 weeks; it is at this point in gestational development that we believe the State has an obligation to protect the life of the unborn.

Science: Actually, it’s 21 weeks now, and there is some added information about the ability to feel pain pretty early on.

Some Democrats: A woman’s right to make decisions about her own body is sacred, anyone who says otherwise is just a hater. And by “her own body”, that means that she can decide to leave a postpartum infant on a table and withhold care until it dies.

Some Republicans (Including Alabamans): “Life is defined at that point when a heartbeat can be detected, which at this point is at 8 weeks. ”

For me, the over-arching philosophical discussion from a political point of view is about freedom and rights and seeking compromise when the rights of two parties are mutually exclusive. Here, of course, I’m talking about the rights of a woman to have an abortion versus the rights of a child to survive.

This argument also points to the ongoing question that is at the heart of this country’s Constitution – a balance between self-determination vs. government regulation, and then of course the rights of the State versus the control of the Central Government.

The metaphysical question is perhaps more interesting, but also more elusive.

There’s a lot of inconsistency in the way this is handled, and one doesn’t have to draw bizarre analogies to prisons and crime and punishment. Why, for example, are extreme measures taken to save the life of a premature infant born at 22 or 23 weeks, whereas no measures are taken to save the life of the victim of a botched abortion? And why are the taxpayers given the bill for both the neo-natal ICU and the abortion clinic?

And why is it that in some cases, an unborn fetus is considered a mere clump of cells that can be discarded with no moral obligation, but in other cases the murder of a pregnant woman is considered to be a double homicide?

I’d rather talk about these things than try to make the case that some legislator in Alabama is ignorant or inconsistent, or that Southern White Men hate women. That’s a waste of time, in my book.

I would think that, as a philosopher, you would be a little more concerned with the larger issue here

Do you see the flaw in your reasoning here?

This argument also points to the ongoing question that is at the heart of this country’s Constitution – a balance between self-determination vs. government regulation

This is the meat of this specific matter of course. Which is why neither side wants to think about this thing philosophically. The important social, intellectual, philosophical, moral, etc. issues do not lead to an easy answer. Yet this is itself something of what I call a leaf (as opposed to root) issue.

More broadly, we live in an age of gotcha arguments and preening and virtue signaling and such that no one is really, truly interested in addressing the matter at hand, be it abortion, environment, economics, foreign policy, whatever. Oh they may insist they care, but their actions seem to be a tell on their true nature. What is important is the ego of the person making the argument. Thus it’s not about the argument, it’s not about facts or science or poverty or any of those things. It’s about a narcissistic boomer generation that begat even more narcissistic X-ers and Millennials. We now have three generations that have had so much handed to them, both philosophically/culturally and materially, that they have become incredibly isolated from the consequences of virtually every bad decision in their lives that they failed to learn anything about the real world. Which is also why we have so many Darwin award winners. Some of them kinda learned at the last possible moment. This is the root of a great number of our problems. The failure to address that root issue cripples the ability to adequately deal with the leaf issues.

Yes, sad but true. I call it a lack of critical thinking, but others might regard it as populism or even tribalism. Who knows what went on in the late 18th century; all we have to go on is the highly idealized philosophical underpinnings of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers – and maybe secondarily documents like the Cumberland Compact and even the Magna Carta.

But in terms of our own day-to-day living, I’ve been reminded too many times that all this philosophy, all idealism and deep-thought give way to what amounts to impulse-buying.

One can engage in all sorts of metaphysical questioning about life and death, individual rights vs. the rights of others – the rights of the individual vs. the obligation of the state, etc., etc – but all that takes a back seat to the immediacy of pregnancy or the passion of a “movement”.

The facts do tell quite a bit in this particular argument.

According to the CDC, 91.1% of all abortions in 2015 took place in < 13 weeks of gestation; 7.6% took place 21 weeks.

Doing the math, then, we see that almost 99% of all abortions in the US are already in keeping with the spirit of “Roe v Wade” (“when does the State have an obligation to intercede, based on fetal viability”?) even within the context of earlier viability due to advancements in medical science over the last 45 years or so.

Although the total number of US abortions has decreased since 2015, and the percentages above have decreased concomitantly, we can use that year as a sample. During that year there were a total of 638,169 abortions – the lowest level in the study years of 2006-2015. Recent statistics have shown that the numbers have declined steadily even since 2015, but here is where the hard numbers exist, so let’s just stay here for now.

So what are we really talking about here?

Ignoring, for the time being, the extremist arguments of Abortion vs No Abortion, and dealing only with the more mainstream proposals of changing the point in time at which the State claims an interest – from the existing 28 weeks to the more scientifically-current value of 21 or 22 weeks, we find that a vast majority of these procedures are already in compliance – and an adjustment in Roe v Wade would affect at most 8,300 women. And these 8300 women would not be denied abortions, but rather, the abortions would have to be shown to be medically necessary. I have no statistics to show here, but I would guess that a majority of them already are.

So what of Alabama and other states attempting to ban all abortions, or other states adopting “heartbeat” laws – vs. states like Virginia, seeking to allow abortions up to and including postpartum infant death?

Well, that’s a very interesting set of questions – and a set that has been argued since the birth of this nation – the self-determination of the states versus the rule of a central government. There’s no single answer – there are only situations where judgments need to be made. Do we want to live in a progressive Blue State like California, with high taxes and comprehensive social programs for citizens and non-citizens alike, and that offers “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants? Or do we prefer to live in a state like Texas, with a fiercely independent “State’s Rights” mentality, rejecting the temptations and rigors of federal largess?

Boiling this down to some raw numbers, in 2015, the rate of abortion in Alabama was 6 abortions per 1000 women aged 15 – 44. The data reported are unclear as to whether or not it refers to all women or just per 1000 of pregnant women.

However, in 2015, the number of women aged 15-44 was just under 953,000. At 6 abortions per 1000 women in that age group, we are talking about 54 women within a state population of over 8 million citizens who might be affected by this law.

So can we actually say that in general, the population of Alabama is, in fact, of the belief that life, all life is sacred, that live their lives according to that belief, and that the 54 women who find themselves in opposition to that belief are in a very small minority?

If that’s the case, then, can the majority of citizens of Alabama say to these 54 individuals, “These are the laws of our State, as voted on by a majority – but because this is one state out of 50, you are free to move to a state whose laws are more in keeping with your beliefs”?

That’s certainly the case with the millions of “snowbirds” who move from New York and New Jersey to Florida, to avoid the state income taxes in retirement. That’s certainly the case for the thousands of companies that incorporate in the state of Delaware, for the favorable corporate tax laws in that states. And it’s certainly the case for gun aficionados who prefer to live in states with relaxed gun laws, which are more in keeping with their own beliefs on that issue as well. If I were interested in carrying my 9mm on my hip, I’d move to Texas. If i didn’t want to worry about obtaining an abortion if I became pregnant, I’d move out of Alabama. In that sense, I think we’re fortunate to live in a country that (at least for now) has those freedoms defined in that way.

So I will repeat what I said in my other post – there is a metaphysical argument about “when life begins” or “what defines life” – and if we want to discuss inconsistencies there we have that world of “double-murder” for a pregnant woman, or the abortion of a viable fetus in one case versus the extreme measures to save a premature infant in another –

And there is the political argument that has its roots in the birth of this country – the unification of a number of separate, autonomous states that have the right to self-determination under the protective umbrella of a powerful, but severely restricted, federal government.

And, as you point out, there are the entitled generations that are emerging that don’t want to have to think, that want what they want when they want it, who prefer to not have to think about things like “compromise” or laws that protect things like “freedom of speech” without regard to content.

“it’s not about facts or science or poverty or any of those things. It’s about a narcissistic boomer generation that begat even more narcissistic X-ers and Millennials. We now have three generations that have had so much handed to them, both philosophically/culturally and materially, that they have become incredibly isolated from the consequences of virtually every bad decision in their lives that they failed to learn anything about the real world.”

Exactly. Life is tough. Get a helmet. Put it on, and you might just find that you’re better off – more equipped for what life really offers.

“A total of 638,169 abortions for 2015 were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. Among these 49 reporting areas, the abortion rate for 2015 was 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 188 abortions per 1,000 live births.”

So the 6 per thousand definitely refers to women, not pregnancies.

However, in 2015, the number of women aged 15-44 was just under 953,000. At 6 abortions per 1000 women in that age group, we are talking about 54 women within a state population of over 8 million citizens who might be affected by this law.

54 sounds awfully small. Isn’t that 5400? or 5700? there are 953 * thousand and 6 for every thousand, so 953 * 6

Mike, you are forgetting that abortions target baby girls more often than baby boys. In fact, there are an estimated 23 million missing girls. I think a much stronger case can be made that pro-abortion policies hurt women.

We can debate abortion in China during the 1 child era and India if you would like, but my main concern is with the United States. Not sure why people always bring up China when debating US abortion laws, aside from some sort of red herring.

Having an abortion for sex-selection certainly seems wrong; but that is generally not the motive in the United States. Now, you could build a moral argument from the principle that sex-selection abortion is wrong to encompass most or even all abortions. Of course, you could also go backwards and use a principle that justifies one type of abortion and expand that to justify almost all abortions.

“People” is a pretty broad term, but also very nonspecific. Some people might bring this up, but I’m not sure they represent a unified, cohesive argument. Actually, I’m pretty sure they don’t.

As a “person”, and as a member of the set of “people”, I can say with certainty that I have not brought up abortion in China during the 1 child era, nor have i spoken about India. As a “person”, (subset “people”) I have not addressed the issue of abortion for sex-selection at all.

The single issue that I have brought up, which you have not addressed, is that of “Is there some kind of consensus regarding when life begins?” And I have suggested that this is the arena where we, as “deep thinkers” and self-defined “Philosophers” might best choose to begin asking our questions.

I have also addressed the fact that the popular answers to this question varies based on political expediency rather than any sort of metaphysical analysis – that sometimes the answer is a simple matter of tribal adherence, and in other instances the answer is far from a “Universal Truth”, but rather panders to a kind of watered-down Utilitarianism whose underpinnings are based on some kind of populist agenda.

I have asked the question about how, with two identical fetuses at two identical terms, the abortion of one can be justified while extreme measures to preserve the life of the other can also be taken.

I have asked the question about how one unborn fetus can be “a mere collection of cells” and can be aborted with no moral or ethical thought, whereas an identical unborn fetus, at the exact same moment of gestation, can be one victim of a double homicide if the mother is murdered.

Maybe most importantly, I’ve asked about the meaning of the language of Roe v. Wade, and if the apparent intent of that law is in fact meaningful at all. This approach asks (as is described in the original law) if the viability of a fetus really does have a bearing on the obligation of the State to intercede – to challenge the rights of the pregnant woman to make decisions about her own body in order to consider the rights of the unborn child within, based on its ability to survive outside of the womb and feel pain.

Within this context I have asked if it is reasonable, considering the language of the original law, to adjust the timeframe of unrestricted abortion without State involvement based on new scientific evidence that the 1973 timeframes may be outdated and incorrect.

The question about sex-selection is more specific than I intended to get, but for a society whose survival might depend on a proliferation of males, and which is suffering from a serious overpopulation problem, i’d say that a sex-selective abortion problem might be morally and ethically acceptable.

Likewise, for a society that is facing possible extinction, I’d suggest that an abortion policy that favors female births over male births might be the moral ethical path to take, as it would be the one most likely to promote the survival of the society.

But in this debate, these questions have not come up. The questions are metaphysical, ethereal, and even political – but they remain unanswered and un-addressed in this forum.

But for the issues that have come up in this debate, if one side is going to claim that restrictive abortion policies discriminate against women, i see it as perfectly reasonable to counter that sex-selection abortion laws do the opposite. On the one hand, we are constantly reminded by the Left that we live in a Global Economy; and on the other hand, there are no statistics whatsoever that might indicate that there is or is not “gender bias” in US abortions. This is a simple matter of data collection – but to me, that’s pretty meaningless anyway.

Statement 2:
The prisons are underfunded, with the result that they are dangerous.

Where is the inconsistency?

One might make a case for the state taking some responsibility for the harm that comes from imprisonment – in fact, I’d suggest that that is a serious charge against the entire American penal and legal system – but it is not inconsistent; negligent, at most. A better approach might have been to point out that the states introducing these new laws have the worst infant mortality numbers in the US. Again, reprehensible and negligent, but not inconsistent.

If you want to demonstrate inconsistency, you need to attack the statement “Abortion is murder” head-on.